NutWrench:squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

But you have a point. Why do you think we're in this state of things? It's because we have a 24-hour news cycle now. This isn't the 1970s when we had TV news at noon and 6 o'clock, and that's all. Now news is entertainment, and wars are big business. They're also very distracting. They keep the proles engaged; Watching TV (and the ads that go with that), buying things (gotta stock up in case we're attacked!), talking about war (instead of what's really going on), cursing the politician of the hour (instead of recognizing the true powers behind the thrones), and generally being busy little people who don't challenge the real masters of this world and stay right where they want us.

It's all about keeping folks busy and entertained, and yes, watching people on the other side of the world die is entertainment for news junkies and armchair politicians. It's high entertainment that gets both sides riled up and takes all their attention.

The whole system is a show. Presidents don't make decisions; They announce decisions that have been made for them by people who are a hell of a lot more powerful and secretive than our politicians are. Washington DC is just another version of Hollywood. It's drama/scandal/power-monger theater for the masses. You're no better off with one party than another, since they're all just as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to what really happens in the world. It's just that they figured out how to play their role, take the money, and enjoy the good life in exchange for their job of distracting the rest of us.

ZeroCorpse:GibbyTheMole: Ah, remember the good ol' days when the American government wasn't chomping at the bit every couple of years to blow up some far-flung corner of the world?

Yeah, me neither.

It's champing at the bit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/champing+at+the+bit

But you have a point. Why do you think we're in this state of things? It's because we have a 24-hour news cycle now. This isn't the 1970s when we had TV news at noon and 6 o'clock, and that's all. Now news is entertainment, and wars are big business. They're also very distracting. They keep the proles engaged; Watching TV (and the ads that go with that), buying things (gotta stock up in case we're attacked!), talking about war (instead of what's really going on), cursing the politician of the hour (instead of recognizing the true powers behind the thrones), and generally being busy little people who don't challenge the real masters of this world and stay right where they want us.

It's all about keeping folks busy and entertained, and yes, watching people on the other side of the world die is entertainment for news junkies and armchair politicians. It's high entertainment that gets both sides riled up and takes all their attention.

The whole system is a show. Presidents don't make decisions; They announce decisions that have been made for them by people who are a hell of a lot more powerful and secretive than our politicians are. Washington DC is just another version of Hollywood. It's drama/scandal/power-monger theater for the masses. You're no better off with one party than another, since they're all just as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to what really happens in the world. It's just that they figured out how to play their role, take the money, and enjoy the good life in exchange for their job of distracting the rest of us.

Subtle_Canary:When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

It was a UN free for all against a heavily-armed country that had just rolled over its southern neighbor. But we still went in with Shermans against T-34/85s. Not exactly a dominating match-up on our part.

We spent most of the Vietnam war NOT fighting against the NVA and when we DID finally go against them we spent most of our time trying not to. The VC was mostly eliminated after Tet, but the NVA never met us on the field with their mechanized forces. They played a light infantry warfare game with us til we left, and then waged conventional war against the South in 74 once we were gone. I see your point though.

I wouldn't say the US military tried spending any time trying not to fight the NVA. But even in their light infantry fight, the North Vietnamese operationally quite good - something we generally haven't faced since. Even the Chinese got their asses handed to them a few years later. (The Chinese began thinking that this "radio" contraption might have its uses.)

Remind me again why we are not treating elimination of all petroleum use like the top priority national defense item it actually is. If nobody used petroleum, these subhuman savages would run out of money to fund their little monkey-fights.

Originally I thought we had a chance, 2 years ago, to help out some good guys getting their shiat pushed in by brutal regime thugs. But now, those good guys are mostly dead or fled, and it's a lot of bad guy vs bad guy at this point. So, I'll just repost this:

/"surgical" strikes might still be an option IF Assad (or semi-rogue parts of his forces) did the attack

Because they don't do stuff like that. If they did, they would simply lose access.

Ding!

They even go so far as refusing military help in purely humanitarian missions. They only reluctantly use military aviation when they're desperate, and even then, they made the Dutch cover up their national markings.

They bend over backwards not to do this kinds of stuff precisely to maintain their access both here and in future crises.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Agreed, though sounding reasonable and being reasonable are different things. Still, it's a point worth considering carefully.

snocone:NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

They pretty much avoid getting involved in this sort of crap.

Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.

Shadowe:I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Yeah. You and me agreeing with Abe Vigoda's Ghost about something... what is Fark coming to?

SpectroBoy:AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: No. It's not brilliant. He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year. And no. Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act. His ego will allow nothing less. Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it? You mark my words. Even without approval he's gonna do something. I mean? What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances? Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim. Now THAT would be brilliant. :-)

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x682]

Typical of a farker who can't formulate a thought. The fallback is always to post an ad-hom attack in the form of a cartoon in the hope that you'll look cool. And you will ... To the rest of the retards. Well done. Now. Did you have anything intelligent to add, Spectro-Boy? Sorry. Rhetorical question.

NutWrench:snocone: NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

They pretty much avoid getting involved in this sort of crap.

Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.

NutWrench:Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.

The point is that they are diligent in NOT TAKING SIDES. Period. It's not about the ease with which they could provide evidence of one side, or the likelihood that anyone would disagree with the side they took. It's that they are allowed in because no matter what, they don't pick sides - they help the needy. That universal neutrality and the REPUTATION of universal neutrality is the primary advantage that they have.

If Assad wins, there will be massive death and destruction. Iran's primary national ally in the region will remain intact, and will be more likely than before to screw around with its neighbors. The US and Europe will look foolish, indecisive, and weak.

If the rebels win, there will be massive death and destruction as the fanatics wipe out every Alawite, Christian, and Shi'ite they can find (which may turn into yet another civil war). Al-Qaeda will likely gain a new regional stronghold, and even if they don't, it will likely be a place that Saudi Arabia grooms into being another backwards theocracy. The help offered by the West will soon be forgotten as fanatics take control.

ciberido:Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Agreed, though sounding reasonable and being reasonable are different things. Still, it's a point worth considering carefully.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We're arguing over whether or not we are justified in attacking Assad because of his use of chemical weapons, but the evidence they are citing that proves he used them is classified. If we do end up going to war, I'd at least like to see the evidence that it is somewhat just.

vygramul:Subtle_Canary:When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

It was a UN free for all against a heavily-armed country that had just rolled over its southern neighbor. But we still went in with Shermans against T-34/85s. Not exactly a dominating match-up on our part.

We spent most of the Vietnam war NOT fighting against the NVA and when we DID finally go against them we spent most of our time trying not to. The VC was mostly eliminated after Tet, but the NVA never met us on the field with their mechanized forces. They played a light infantry warfare game with us til we left, and then waged conventional war against the South in 74 once we were gone. I see your point though.

I wouldn't say the US military tried spending any time trying not to fight the NVA. But even in their light infantry fight, the North Vietnamese operationally quite good - something we generally haven't faced since. Even the Chinese got their asses handed to them a few years later. (The Chinese began thinking that this "radio" contraption might have its uses.)

The Korean War is an odd case. immediately following WW2, the Soviets dumped as much aid/weaponry as they could in the North while the allies looked at the South and went 'meh'. When the North came rolling in, they actually had far less in numbers, military wise than the South but they did have aggressors initiative, organization and support. The numbers were even worse when the UN got involved. Basically UN forces had about a 3:1 manpower advantage on the ground and in the air it wasnt even worth a debate. NK was able to throw up some fancy MiG's but if they werent being flown by combat experienced Soviet 'advisors' they tended to only be worth so much burning metal.

and yeah, we had Sherman v T-34 fights. But there were a lot more Pershings and Pattons and in any event armored warfare wasnt that big a deal.

agree completely with the Vietnam angle though. The NVA had a VERY professional army, and they did pretty well going against our mostly draftee forces. If it wasnt for the incredible amount of aerial firepower we could bring to bear the NVA likely would have either driven us out of the country or forced us to resort to a nuclear option.

BojanglesPaladin:NutWrench: Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.

The point is that they are diligent in NOT TAKING SIDES. Period. It's not about the ease with which they could provide evidence of one side, or the likelihood that anyone would disagree with the side they took. It's that they are allowed in because no matter what, they don't pick sides - they help the needy. That universal neutrality and the REPUTATION of universal neutrality is the primary advantage that they have.

They don't take sides by not playing, the only answer. Whatever they report, if they did, would be turned, refined and utilized as a public opinion weapon.Have you ever personally given information to the media? Did what came out resemble what you actually provided?

doomjesse:Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

So in 2003 it was, "Waterboarding is just enhanced interrogation."In 2011 we had, "Pepper spray is a food product, essentially."Now in 2013 it's "Bullets kill people just as dead as chemical weapons."

I wonder what craven justification for acts of terror people will come up with next year.

bdub77:you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it. Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Which is exactly why I'd like to see a beefed-up United Nations become the world's police. It's painfully obvious that SOMEbody has to. I'd really rather it not be the USA.

The US caught Syria aiding or actually deploying insurgents into Iraq.

The US has been aiding anti-Assad elements in Syria as payback, successfully fomenting civil war both as payback and to keep him too busy to export trouble.

The aim of the US is for the civil war to continue, not for either side to win.

The Arab-spring uprisings have at least some (possibly loose) leadership connections. The US had a finger in that pot.

The US called in some favors for help tying Syria up. This may have involved connections in Libya.

The US bombings in Libya were payback for assistance to the US, possibly in Syria.

The later consulate attack in Libya was either payback for a US double-cross or an insurgent faction unhappy with the others for cooperating with the US. The US officials with knowledge tried to distance the US from it, 'sacrificed' US officials there and downplayed the event hoping to keep the other plotting involving Libya secret.

The US intended chemical weapon use in Syria as an excuse to assist rebels in Syria with some strategic bombing knowing that the damage was likely to hurt Assad but not help the rebels against him much. If the Russians have anything 'interesting' in Syria it would of course be collateral damage.

The US had some advance knowledge of the CW attack. Whether the US knew and didn't warn, or were behind it as a false flag operation the US hoped to frame Assad personally for the attack. Either the sigint frame job went awry or the real persons/group who used the CW is known and the trail doesn't lead to Assad. This failure is the reason there is no support for an attack on Syria. It's possible the US does have proof it can't use because it would compromise excellent intelligence sources/methods that are more valuable than this event.

</tinfoil hat>

This is a fun tempest to speculate about. There is definitely more under the surface here.

Carth:Assad is likely a mass murdering war criminal but I don't think he is engaging in genocide. He seems to be killing anyone who disagree with him not targeting people of a specific race, religion or nationality.

Not really even that. At the moment, his forces are basically ignoring the Kurds (and vice-versa). He's shooting at anyone who shoots back, basically.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

That's fine, that's a reasonable position. I can see the motive for the rebels, though I'm not sure whether they'd have the ability. When someone starts painting Assad as the reasonable one in all this though, either because they're rabidly anti-Obama, or rabidly opposed to military action, they just look like an ass clown.

ciberido:doomjesse: Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

So in 2003 it was, "Waterboarding is just enhanced interrogation."In 2011 we had, "Pepper spray is a food product, essentially."Now in 2013 it's "Bullets kill people just as dead as chemical weapons."

I wonder what craven justification for acts of terror people will come up with next year.

Thunderpipes:I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

The differences?

Iraq was a totally contained entity. He was a secular strong man running a country that basically kept fundamental nutty islamism in check. With Saddam in place you knew where your terrorist where coming from and where they WERENT going to be. Basically, Iraq was a big farking 'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' as far as al qaeda flavored nuttiness went. Iran didnt have as strong a hand because in the back of their mind, Iraq could STILL be a threat.

Then we knock Mr Mustache off his throne, opened up the country for every religious nutter with an AK and now the whole country is a free flow zone for jihadist and weaponry.

Syria is a country currently involved in a civil war that has potential for spilling over borders. If Iraq war 2 hadnt happened Syria wouldnt be happening but hey, hindsight and all. So we either help 'support' (by not getting involved) another secular strongman who represents stability (if even it is noxious stability) or help the jihadis who hate him topple him so that the warming embrace of militant Islamism can spread ever farther.

Basically its a question of, whats better in the long run. In the long run, keeping Iraq as a nutball buffer zone was ideal. we hooched that one though. So whats the ideal scenario for Syria? keeping a country in perpetual war so that no single bloc takes over and exerts influence (Iran). Or picking the side of the people who represent the ideas of goons we've been at war with for over a decade because Al-assad is an asshole?

Considering that the CIA was so concerned with Indonesia's Sukarno's `non-aligned' status that they created a "Health Alteration Committee" to study-out how to best elevate his status to that of non-entity, I could imagine some `cut-out' retiring family members/Colleagues of Assad (personal message - not a collateralizing issue). Maybe some perverse body-double porn with the `Assad' being reamed by a `Putin' (a`Sukarno' was `exposed' shtupping a `bleached Natasha') to shame him before the chadorettes in the souk congregation - well, could be `fun' virally...

Not a CSB (just for some resonation & not comic relief):

In the early months of 1958, rebellion began to break out in one part of the Indonesian island chain, then another. CIA pilots took to the air to carry out bombing and strafing missions in support of the rebels. In Washington, Col. Alex Kawilarung, the Indonesian military attaché, was persuaded by the Agency to "defect". He soon showed up in Indonesia to take charge of the rebel forces. Yet, as the fighting dragged on into spring, the insurgents proved unable to win decisive victories or take the offensive, although the CIA bombing raids were taking their toll. Sukarno later claimed that on a Sunday morning in April, a plane bombed a ship in the harbor of the island of Ambon - all those aboard losing their lives - as well as hitting a church, which demolished the building and killed everyone inside. He stated that 700 casualties had resulted from this single run.

If U.S. citizens and their reps spent as much time and effort isolating the Republic `Energetically' as they have/do maintaining/cultivating the `risk-on' bullshiat that purports to pass for `policy' & `free market' we'd have fixed our little problem after the `73 oil embargo, Had we done so, we'd just send humanitarian aid following the chemical/nuclear exchanges between the local competitors for `truth?' And drive on unvexed...